| Author | Post |
|---|
bohdi
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 03:50 pm |
|
This might need to fall under general, but it's school related so I figured I put it here.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/24/football.coach.shot/index.html
|
davesnothere
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mesa, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 04:31 pm |
|
Since it's a High School it falls into the Federal "Gun Free Zone" statutes, and therefore the coach qualifies as a "Gun Free Victim."
Another example of the logical fallacy of creating gun free zones. Gun Free Zones don't keep guns out. They just prevent law-abiding citizens from having the ability to protect themselves.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
| +1 We're unarmed... come in and kill us! Last edited on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 07:08 pm by Sonora Rebel
|
GumiBear
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Austin, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 161 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 11:42 am |
|
In case you missed it, there is an excellent article on this subject in another thread;
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=24148&forum_id=64&highlight=SSRN
Check out the .pdf that is linked in the thread, great read!
|
protias
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 01:01 pm |
|
davesnothere wrote: Since it's a High School it falls into the Federal "Gun Free Zone" statutes, and therefore the coach qualifies as a "Gun Free Victim."
Another example of the logical fallacy of creating gun free zones. Gun Free Zones don't keep guns out. They just prevent law-abiding citizens from having the ability to protect themselves.
There are no Federal laws regarding Gun Free School Zones anymore. I think these are left up to the state now and UT is the only one who does not have "gun free zones."
|
davesnothere
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mesa, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 09:34 pm |
|
You must not have read the whole page.
Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, " has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.
Proving that the gun "has moved in...interstate commerce" is as easy as determining if the gun was manufactured outside the State where the offense was committed.
My 1911A1 was made outside Arizona, therefore it has "moved in interstate commerce."
|
thefirststrike
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Moscow, Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 07:36 am |
|
davesnothere wrote: You must not have read the whole page.
Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, " has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.
Proving that the gun "has moved in...interstate commerce" is as easy as determining if the gun was manufactured outside the State where the offense was committed.
My 1911A1 was made outside Arizona, therefore it has "moved in interstate commerce."
I am confused...is it legal to carry in a school zone or not? And if it is, why can state universities and colleges still be given the ability under "administrative rules" to circumvent federal and state Constitutions and effectively deny us our constitutionally protected rights to carry our weapons?
Dave
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 701 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 04:04 pm |
|
18 USC 922(q)(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is--
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
In Utah, this is satisfied by:
UCA 76-10-505.5. Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises -- Penalties.
(1) A person may not possess any dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun, as those terms are defined in Section 76-10-501, at a place that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is on or about school premises as defined in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1).
(2)
(a) Possession of a dangerous weapon on or about school premises is a class B misdemeanor.
(b) Possession of a firearm or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises is a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply if:
(a) the person is authorized to possess a firearm as provided under Section 53-5-704, 53-5-705, 76-10-511, or 76-10-523, or as otherwise authorized by law;
(b) the possession is approved by the responsible school administrator;
(c) the item is present or to be used in connection with a lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control of the person responsible for its possession or use; or
(d) the possession is:
(i) at the person's place of residence or on the person's property;
(ii) in any vehicle lawfully under the person's control, other than a vehicle owned by the school or used by the school to transport students; or
(iii) at the person's place of business which is not located in the areas described in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iv).
(4) This section does not prohibit prosecution of a more serious weapons offense that may occur on or about school premises.
Edit: Added UCA 76-10-505.5 excerpt
Last edited on Tue Jul 7th, 2009 04:11 pm by rpyne
|
davesnothere
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mesa, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 05:24 am |
|
Colleges and Universities do not fall under the Gun Free Schools rules from a Federal level.
Only Elementary, Secondary and High Schools.
|
noname762
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25th, 2009 07:24 am |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote:
+1 We're unarmed... come in and kill us!
It was several months ago I think. Three or four, it could have been 5 attacks on young women at the University of Washington over 2or 3 weeks. Correct me if I am wrong but some scrawny dark haired guy...coulda been mex was trying to assault college gals walking on campus after dark. Campus cops were no help. It just takes one LAC in the wrong place at the right time to put the kabosh on a predator like that. I think the bad guy left town for greener pastures. I don't think he ever got caught. Personally I would have loved it if he had of gotten caught by one of those feminists and got the s*** kicked out of him by a girl.
|
stainless1911
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 15th, 2010 03:39 am |
|
| what? they diddnt charge the coach with posession of ammunition?
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 492 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 15th, 2010 06:59 am |
|
| I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that whole story. It's a 'gun free zone', so nobody could have been shot there. Sorry to rain on your parade, the media must have got it wrong. Perhaps it was near a gun free zone, and if the zone were a little larger, he'd have been safe, and not shot. Gun free zones keep us safe!
|
Current time is 03:56 pm | |
|
